| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You notice the name? French penguins. Nothing to see here.
Oh snaps!
I approve of where this thread ended up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Penguins do it in the street!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we poodles were perverted.
As I have to keep telling the Mrs. Grundys, "polymorphously perverse" is NOT the same as "perverted."
If it ain't dirty, you ain't doin' it right.
Some say taht he can't eat mashed potatoes for religous reasons.
Penguins eat mashed potatoes!? ADD IT TO THE LIST!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I approve of where this thread ended up.
It grow'd up real purty.
I propose a round of golf claps and snausages for our fearless warwoof, who helped bring much comedy to these proceedings and turned an ugly thread silly. Well played.
And, once again, I get no credit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, once again, I get no credit.
{turns off the Sartre Signal} Because he's the troll the OTF deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll spurn him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a snarky guardian, a watchful philosopher. An existentialist knight." - Commissioner Toenibbler
I approve of where this thread ended up.It grow'd up real purty.
I propose a round of golf claps and snausages for our fearless warwoof, who helped bring much comedy to these proceedings and turned an ugly thread silly. Well played.
I stopped reading about 120 posts before my previous one, so I missed warwoof. Also, I have no intention of reading back.
I will take your word for it though.
The United Church of Christ is a very liberal denomination and as such these comments come as no surprise. It is simply a political agenda dressed up in bad theology.
+
Let's get back to the smarmy political import of this Marxist agenda. It's a proven a fact that liberal policies destroy the moral and economic fabric of America.
Let's get back to the smarmy political import of this Marxist agenda. It's a proven a fact that liberal policies destroy the moral and economic fabric of America.The United Church of Christ is a very liberal denomination and as such these comments come as no surprise. It is simply a political agenda dressed up in bad theology.
+
Right, and they gay's are ruining traditional marriage even though they can neither get married nor contributed to the 50%+ divorce rate.
Don't get your logical chocolate in his dogmatic idiocy peanutbutter.
And, once again, I get no credit.
You provided me with the Camus fugue in. It was crucial, if only to disquise my madness in some sort of legitemacy.
[Basks in the reflected glory]
[Stews over inability to rant about the permissive amorality of liberals and America's moral decline]
God won't love us no more!
He never did. Did you even read the Old Testament? He's still pissy about the Tree of Knowledge.
Tree of Knowledge? That's thinking small-time. {snorts bath salts and sriracha sauce, goes back to gnawing on Yggdrasil}
I just realized the post where Spanky called me Uncle Che was deleted.
:(
I just realized the post where Spanky called me Uncle Che was deleted.
:(
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings; I was just joking.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings; I was just joking.I just realized the post where Spanky called me Uncle Che was deleted.
:(
No, I'm sad it was deleted. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're all based on principles that can't be proven. "Magical thinking" as it were.Christianity isn't special in that regard.I didn't say that it was.
How do you consider Taoism, for example, or Pantheism, as another example, to be based on blind faith?
Actually I don't really care what your thought structure is. Ultimately at the bottom of any real system of thought, there is a bedrock which is taken entirely on faith. This includes scientific models. Ask my buddy René sometime.
It's the bedrock that varies.
That's really bad logic. Science is testable on one level or another. Sure, not everything can be proven, but in the face of overwhelming evidence certain principles are assumed until something can be found to counter or disprove, evolution for example. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that others take it on faith.That's not to say we as a species understand everything. Far from it actually. However, Science builds opon itself. Standing on the shoulders of great men and women as it were. Not every scientist has to re-discover the principle of gravity, but they could test the theory if they wanted to. For a much more detailed explination than i am capable of expressing I recommend you (and everyone else) read "The God Delusionn" by Richard Dawkins.
Faith on the other hand is entirely untestable in any way. Feverently stating myths as truths does not make them truths.
In my personal opinion taking anything on blind faith, such as any type of belief in the supernatural, is completely ridiculous and not worthy of respect. Faith based beliefs about the universe boil down to "it's magic. No need to study further and try to figure out what's actually going on." This anti-intellectualism is a large part of what's wrong with the world. And dear christian who might be reading this, I'm not specifically talking about you so try not to get bent out of shape. I'm referring to all beliefs in the supernatural (ghosts, goblin, gods and goddesses, invisible sky fairies). You're particular brand of mysticism isn't special.
I maybe an a-typical Christian, but I like watching advanceing studies in science. Especially the hunt for the higgs bosun. This discovery would be truly huge if it can be found and nailed down and studied.
For me, faith and science aren't mutually exclusive.
I maybe an a-typical Christian, but I like watching advanceing studies in science. Especially the hunt for the higgs bosun. This discovery would be truly huge if it can be found and nailed down and studied.
For me, faith and science aren't mutually exclusive.
They don't have to be, but one is very personal. The problem comes when faith is used as proof.
Evolution VS. Creationism for example. Evolution has a mountain of evidence whereas creationism is magic. Magic of any form isn't science. That's the basic crux of the problem with blending the two.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deep faith may resonate in our position, but it is the ethic of love that forces us to prayerfully reexamine our position.Talk like this could bring me back to Christianity.
How about we just talk like this without Christianity?
Which is not to say Christians are doing anything wrong; but shouldn't this be laudable no matter which creation story you believe in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do philosophy and religion constantly try to denigrate science and tear science down to their level? Fine. Science can't be proven... by philosophy. Neither can your own existence. Rather than doubting science I think you should be doubting a a discipline that can't even prove the back of its own hand.
This however would not give you the freedom to get the answer you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again with the philosophy hate.
BNW, I still don't understand how you've managed to turn philosophy into a pejorative while putting "science" on a pedestal. It seems obvious from the history that the latter emerged from, and still relies upon, the former.
I maybe an a-typical Christian, but I like watching advanceing studies in science. Especially the hunt for the higgs bosun. This discovery would be truly huge if it can be found and nailed down and studied.
For me, faith and science aren't mutually exclusive.They don't have to be, but one is very personal. The problem comes when faith is used as proof.
Evolution VS. Creationism for example. Evolution has a mountain of evidence whereas creationism is magic. Magic of any form isn't science. That's the basic crux of the problem with blending the two.
Well, some folks out there think that when a person says Evolution, they think they mean the origin of the species bit, not the evidence of natural adaption shown by every living thing on the planet.
Just as people bristle when they hear creationism, and think the person believes the universe is only 6k years old.I think God created the universe. I think science and the study thereof exists to try to figure out the how, and maybe a little bit the why. But more importantly, to figure out how it all works. Maybe even a bit to prove or disprove His existence. It's in our nature to question everything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kryzbyn,
Curious: What do you mean by "the origin of species bit"? Without speciaition, there is no evolution so if people are hearing species changing over time to such an extent they're now classified as separate species from their ancestor and other daughter species of that ancestor, then that is exactly what evolution means.
EDIT: Now if you meant origin of life rather than origin of species, then yes, that's not evolution but abeiogenesis and there the science is nowhere near as firmly pinned down. But we have top people working on it. Top people.
EDIT 2: If you're using creationism to mean something other than "something, probably God, created all animals intheir current forms", that isn't the usual meaning of the word. If you are using it to mean "God created the world and then natural process, guided by Him, brought about the variety of life on Earth" then that's moer commonly called "Theistic evolution". If you're referring to "God provided the spark of life then evolution did the rest", I'm not sure that's even got a name of it's own but it isn't what is normally meant by creationism.
Again with the philosophy hate.
Consistency! :)
*shrug* It seems Every time i see someone trying to use philosophy its in some quixotic quest for epistemic nihilism so that facts can be denied. Mayby thats a poor sample size, or I'm just running into bad philosophers like I'm running into not "real Christians" or "genuine conservatives"BNW, I still don't understand how you've managed to turn philosophy into a pejorative while putting "science" on a pedestal. It seems obvious from the history that the latter emerged from, and still relies upon, the former.
Antibiotics, painkillers, species conservation plans, genetics, atomic bombs, electricity, the internet, railroads, internal combustion engines.... i didn't put science on that pedestal science BUILT that pedestal. Sure, you can use science for good or ill but the fact is you can use it... it works. Objectively works whether you believe in it or not.
Science is a rejection of philosophy. Science relies on external confirmation of the end result no matter how logically your conclusions follow from your premises. Science is the recognition that the universe is very complicated and ideas that seem good often aren't.
Philosophy could drop into the sea. Science wouldn't even notice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is such a thing as the philosophy of science, which many scientists would support is essential to good scientific practice. Moreover, "science" itself in its crucial formative stages was more widely called natural philosophy. This opposition between the two is your own invention, methinks.
*not to say philosophy is entirely devoid of quacks and charlatans*
There is such a thing as the philosophy of science, which many scientists would support is essential to good scientific practice
All i see the philosophy of science doing is justifying science to philosophy's standards, which i don't care about.
Any more track laying and i think we need our own line on this derail.
Kryzbyn,
Curious: What do you mean by "the origin of species bit"? Without speciaition, there is no evolution so if people are hearing species changing over time to such an extent they're now classified as separate species from their ancestor and other daughter species of that ancestor, then that is exactly what evolution means.EDIT: Now if you meant origin of life rather than origin of species, then yes, that's not evolution but abeiogenesis and there the science is nowhere near as firmly pinned down. But we have top people working on it. Top people.
A lot of people falsely connect origin of life with evolution, though you don't seem to be. Origin of life is a large numbers game. Dawkins puts it a lot better than I can, but basically earth isn't special. It's just has all the vastly improbable parts needed to support intelligent life and the even more vastly improbable occurence that created the first strands of life (Most likely RNA). There are lots of planets (estimated millions of millions in our gallaxy alone) with the former and only about a million estimated in our galaxy that may have the latter.
Once life starts THEN evolution takes over to make more complex versions. Each small leap/mutation that leads to greater specalization is improbable, but significantly less so than the origin of life. A series of improbable changes that lead to greater chances of survival and procreation create the illusion of intelligent design for any who don't understand the nature of evolution.EDIT 2: If you're using creationism to mean something other than "something, probably God, created all animals intheir current forms", that isn't the usual meaning of the word. If you are using it to mean "God created the world and then natural process, guided by Him, brought about the variety of life on Earth" then that's moer commonly called "Theistic evolution". If you're referring to "God provided the spark of life then evolution did the rest", I'm not sure that's even got a name of it's own but it isn't what is normally meant by creationism.
This is a seperate, but related, debate about theism, athiesm, and a number of variations on that theme. God created the universe then stepped away, god takes action in our every day life, yada yada yada.
BNW, I still don't understand how you've managed to turn philosophy into a pejorative while putting "science" on a pedestal. It seems obvious from the history that the latter emerged from, and still relies upon, the former.Antibiotics, painkillers, species conservation plans, genetics, atomic bombs, electricity, the internet, railroads, internal combustion engines.... i didn't put science on that pedestal science BUILT that pedestal. Sure, you can use science for good or ill but the fact is you can use it... it works. Objectively works whether you believe in it or not.
Science is a rejection of philosophy. Science relies on external confirmation of the end result no matter how logically your conclusions follow from your premises. Science is the recognition that the universe is very complicated and ideas that seem good often aren't.
Philosophy could drop into the sea. Science wouldn't even notice.
I am totally using this in debates from now on. Thanks. ;-)
There is such a thing as the philosophy of science, which many scientists would support is essential to good scientific practiceAll i see the philosophy of science doing is justifying science to philosophy's standards, which i don't care about.
Any more track laying and i think we need our own line on this derail.
Perhaps "ethics of science" woud be better than "phillosophy of science." Philosophy just sounds like nonsense. At least Ethics have some intrinsic value.
Kryzbyn,
Curious: What do you mean by "the origin of species bit"? Without speciaition, there is no evolution so if people are hearing species changing over time to such an extent they're now classified as separate species from their ancestor and other daughter species of that ancestor, then that is exactly what evolution means.EDIT: Now if you meant origin of life rather than origin of species, then yes, that's not evolution but abeiogenesis and there the science is nowhere near as firmly pinned down. But we have top people working on it. Top people.
EDIT 2: If you're using creationism to mean something other than "something, probably God, created all animals intheir current forms", that isn't the usual meaning of the word. If you are using it to mean "God created the world and then natural process, guided by Him, brought about the variety of life on Earth" then that's moer commonly called "Theistic evolution". If you're referring to "God provided the spark of life then evolution did the rest", I'm not sure that's even got a name of it's own but it isn't what is normally meant by creationism.
Yeah, correct on both counts. Some people hear evolution and think the person means Abiogenesis, and get all pissy. Similarly, with the missunderstanding of creationsim, or maybe my missunderstanding of it.
I believe God made everything; I don't read much more into it than that. Figuring out the how's and when's is part of the fun of being human, and science is the tool we use to answer the questions.
Hee hee! This thread would be over if CJ could resist the urge to tease the communist!
In yo' face, Christians!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Science is a rejection of philosophy.
We've gone over this before but you keep misunderstanding.
Science is merely a specialization OF philosophy. Specifically it's the use of a specific philosophy (empiricism) to make arguments (theories) using philosophical rigor. Another specialization of philosophy is mathematics. Yet another would be ethics. The methods with which we prove to one another that anything is true or untrue are rooted in philosophy since, at its core, that's all philosophy is.
We've gone over this before but you keep misunderstanding.
I keep disAGREEING. DO note presume that that's misunderstanding.
Science is a rejection of philosophy.We've gone over this before but you keep misunderstanding.
Science is merely a specialization OF philosophy. Specifically it's the use of a specific philosophy (empiricism) to make arguments (theories) using philosophical rigor. Another specialization of philosophy is mathematics. Yet another would be ethics. The methods with which we prove to one another that anything is true or untrue are rooted in philosophy since, at its core, that's all philosophy is.
I fully understand what you're saying and I completely disagree. I'm with BNW on this one.
We've gone over this before but you keep misunderstanding.I keep disAGREEING. DO note presume that that's misunderstanding.
If someone disagrees about heliocentricity, what do you call that?
You're disagreeing on historical facts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone disagrees about heliocentricity, what do you call that?We've gone over this before but you keep misunderstanding.I keep disAGREEING. DO note presume that that's misunderstanding.
A philosopher extraordinaire.
You're disagreeing on historical facts.
Only if you're a reptile.
Why don't we just go back and read the old philosophy thread, then?
Things that go past being something that they were cease to be that thing at some point. Mammals are not reptiles, bats are not mice/primates, english government is not a monarchy and you are not a zygote.
That's an interesting PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT you're making.
You seem to be agreeing that, at one point, science and philosophy were inseparable, but science has become its own entity since then. I can get on board with that.But, at what point do you decide something is something and when it becomes something else? Surely at one time I WAS a zygote. And then I was not. Was there a singular moment at which I stopped being a zygote, or is it a process?
Similarly, can you pinpoint the exact moment that "natural philosophy" stopped being philosophy, or was it a process? Is it possible that process is still going on?
And what if, as it has, philosophy follows suit and, in its modern incarnation, relies every bit on empiricism as science but merely debates different topics than science? Does that mean that philosophy is a branch of science rather than vice versa?
I think I'd find it less distasteful if you qualified your hate of philosophy to that that doesn't agree with science, because certainly the vast majority of it today either IS science or uses similar methodology. Much of the rest of it is ethics, which I think we can agree science doesn't even attempt to weigh in on.